30" monitor is about 85-90% of real Hornet C pit

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I did some quick rough calcs based on internet photos and hand sizes as seen on 30" display (2560 X 1440). It appears that HUD, MFD, HOTAS, and instruments are about 90% actual size. I don't have 32" panels, but it may be that DCS Hornet pit rendered on 32" panel would be almost actual life sized. I dont have VR and no plans on getting one. 

[Bedouin]

I am playing on a 49" and it gives lots of situation awareness around the cockpit, especially with TrackIR... And the immersion feeling is great, so if not into VR get a pretty huge screen really gives to the feeling/immersion but also have nice andclear MFDs

Edited August 20, 2021 by Bedouin

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Thats a bit too much 49" screen is a TV not a monitor. Gotta check internet . I dislike how Win10 Pro appears on on non-monitor HD and UHD TVs. Even with 120 and 240 motion rate, Windows apps, games, my 3D apps, text, etc... dont have the crispness of my 28" ASUS 144Hz refresh rate gaming monitor.

May be once 120 and 240 motion rate UHD OLED or QDot, come with display port, I'll check then. But even hooking up via HDMI 2.1 to UHD 4K TV panel is not as crisp as via display port to a 144Hz refresh rate gsming monitor .

[MAXsenna]

Thats a bit too much 49" screen is a TV not a monitor. Gotta check internet . I dislike how Win10 Pro appears on on non-monitor HD and UHD TVs. Even with 120 and 240 motion rate, Windows apps, games, my 3D apps, text, etc... dont have the crispness of my 28" ASUS 144Hz refresh rate gaming monitor.
May be once 120 and 240 motion rate UHD OLED or QDot, come with display port, I'll check then. But even hooking up via HDMI 2.1 to UHD 4K TV panel is not as crisp as via display port to a 144Hz refresh rate gsming monitor .

Strange TVs I'd say.



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I suppose I was imagining a 49" screen as 4K UHD 3840X2160 16:9 one buys at COSTCO or BestBuy. MicroCenter nearest to me has some panels like what above post showed. But they are priced uneconomically for features offered. A high enthusiast market niche. I am not getting 60hz or 75 or even 120hz refresh rate. Minimum for me got to be 144. A 5120X1440 240 refresh panel is USD 1,679.00. Which is 3X what 2560 X1440 @144 is. 

[Bedouin]

8 hours ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

Thats a bit too much 49" screen is a TV not a monitor. Gotta check internet . I dislike how Win10 Pro appears on on non-monitor HD and UHD TVs. Even with 120 and 240 motion rate, Windows apps, games, my 3D apps, text, etc... dont have the crispness of my 28" ASUS 144Hz refresh rate gaming monitor.

May be once 120 and 240 motion rate UHD OLED or QDot, come with display port, I'll check then. But even hooking up via HDMI 2.1 to UHD 4K TV panel is not as crisp as via display port to a 144Hz refresh rate gsming monitor .

Mine is a Acer Monitor not a TV. This one https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/UM.SE0AA.002

Edited August 20, 2021 by Bedouin

[TimRobertsen]

16 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Strange TVs I'd say.



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

 

Uventa, og kult å se at norsk dukka opp her! 

[MAXsenna]

 
Uventa, og kult å se at norsk dukka opp her! 

Hehe, skjer fra tid til annen.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[DmitriKozlowsky]

On 8/20/2021 at 12:04 PM, Bedouin said:

Mine is a Acer Monitor not a TV. This one https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/UM.SE0AA.002

 

That is a typical consumer UHD TV.  3840X2160 @ 60Hz refresh rate. Just as I imagined. This is OK for watching TV, or 4K BD, but not for gaming or general use as monitor. For that panel has to be 144Hz refresh or higher and HDR capable.

[Brun]

On 8/22/2021 at 1:11 PM, DmitriKozlowsky said:

That is a typical consumer UHD TV.  3840X2160 @ 60Hz refresh rate. Just as I imagined. This is OK for watching TV, or 4K BD, but not for gaming or general use as monitor. For that panel has to be 144Hz refresh or higher and HDR capable.

 

Absolute nonsense.

[Weta43]

Wiki

 

Quote

 

For the purposes of presenting moving images, the human flicker fusion threshold is usually taken between 60 and 90 Hz

(...)

Different points in the visual system have very different critical flicker fusion rate (CFF) sensitivities; the overall threshold frequency for perception cannot exceed the slowest of these for a given modulation amplitude. Each cell type integrates signals differently. For example, rod photoreceptor cells, which are exquisitely sensitive and capable of single-photon detection, are very sluggish, with time constants in mammals of about 200 ms. Cones, in contrast, while having much lower intensity sensitivity, have much better time resolution than rods do. For both rod- and cone-mediated vision, the fusion frequency increases as a function of illumination intensity, until it reaches a plateau corresponding to the maximal time resolution for each type of vision. The maximal fusion frequency for rod-mediated vision reaches a plateau at about 15 hertz (Hz), whereas cones reach a plateau, observable only at very high illumination intensities, of about 60 Hz.^[3][4]

 

 

If you're getting flickering at 60 Hz or below, turn your brightness up.

[Mars Exulte]

On 8/23/2021 at 10:49 AM, Brun said:

 

Absolute nonsense.

  ....no. It's not nonsense. A basic consumer grade TV (which is what 60hz is by definition) will not have nearly as good an overall image quality as a gaming monitor or higher end TV. In particular TVs almost always have much higher response times, which increases ghosting, and the lower refresh rate results in an image that's not even remotely as smooth as 100hz+

 

  That's not ''opinion'' it's observable fact.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[Brun]

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

  ....no. It's not nonsense. A basic consumer grade TV (which is what 60hz is by definition) will not have nearly as good an overall image quality as a gaming monitor or higher end TV. In particular TVs almost always have much higher response times, which increases ghosting, and the lower refresh rate results in an image that's not even remotely as smooth as 100hz+

 

  That's not ''opinion'' it's observable fact.

 

 

The claim that a monitor must be 'minimum' 144Hz and HDR capable is clearly nonsense, because the majority are neither.

 

Are these all 'consumer TVs'? Wonder how many have aerial sockets?

 

[LucShep]

19 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  ....no. It's not nonsense. A basic consumer grade TV (which is what 60hz is by definition) will not have nearly as good an overall image quality as a gaming monitor or higher end TV. In particular TVs almost always have much higher response times, which increases ghosting, and the lower refresh rate results in an image that's not even remotely as smooth as 100hz+

 

  That's not ''opinion'' it's observable fact.

 

 

Yes it's utter nonsense.

 

If you at least try to make some research, you'll see that in more recent years even affordable UHD (4K) 60Hz TVs from reknowned brands (Samsung, LG, Sony, TCL, Hisense, etc) have dedicated PC/Game mode, chroma 4:4:4, and, really, pretty good input lag (under 12 ms) and low response time (also under 12 ms), be it with IPS or VA panels (which have now got to pretty darn good levels of quality). If that much, what these require is user calibration of colors (usually awful from factory).

For example, a 43'' LG UP7000/UP7500 (IPS panel) is ~350,00 Eur, and a good option for anyone looking for something larger than a regular monitor for PC, without spending too much: LG UP7000 Review - RTINGS.com

 

Of course, if you can stretch the budget further, then you can get TVs with curved screens, FreeSync, 120Hz and even OLED panels (instant response time and unparalleled image quality). Yes, these are widely recognized for being amazing as PC monitors.

 

Have recently assisted a friend with his gaming rig, who was raving about his uber 27'' Asus 1440P 144Hz "top of the line" gaming model, and I couldn't help but snort when we ran a certain flightsim - cockpit ingame was so small that it felt like I was gaming on my friggin smartphone! LOL  You're right, it's an observable fact!

 

If it's for something like DCS and other flight-sims, or even miltary or racing sims, I definitely feel that a decent quality 43'' to 55'' UHD TV screen is far better investment for better immersion than any overpriced "ultra-wide", or high spec'ed (tiny) 27'' and even 32'', for the simple fact of having far better real life scale of ingame image/objects, and no real downsides. There, it trumps them, easily.

The "gamerzz specs" are great for twitch-shooters on 500+ framerate, sure, but otherwise are kinda nonsense for simulation game titles, when alternatives for far better immersion are now available.
 

For example, this 48'' OLED TV is not exactly affordable but, really, nothing else comes close:

 

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by LucShep

[Cytarabine]

Just to clarify OLED TV's are great for gaming, however they are not ideal as general purpose monitors (due to their subpixel arrangement and of course burn in issues which are an inherent part of the technology). Some modern TV's are great as monitors, but it's about getting the right one.

 

I use a 49" 32:9 ultrawide and it is great for DCS, the additional horizontal FOV makes looking side to side with track IR feel less janky that it does on a 16:9 screen. My monitor also serves as my workstation when working from home and an OLED TV would not fit the bill for that given there are often static images on the screen for extended periods of time, and a lot of my time is spent reading text which is where the subpixel arrangement on OLEDs is less good.

 

If I was buying a display purely for gaming though it would be harder, an OLED TV is amazing for that.

 

Horses for courses. Personally happy with my choice, it suits me (and has freed me from spending my time tweaking settings to get VR playable).